Posted
by
Zonk
on Wednesday July 11, 2007 @11:26AM
from the love-the-helmets dept.

After a bout of radio silence, yesterday Sony unveiled Killzone 2 as it stands today. Those attending the event seem duly impressed. Eurogamer's Tom Bramwell points out that the level of cynicism has been set quite high, after the pre-rendered 2005 trailer prompted a lot of hard feelings among journalists. Just the same, Susan Arendt of Game|Life is of the opinion that the wait was worth it: "Most of the action we saw was basic run-and gun--working your way up and down, through the buildings of the city to reach various checkpoints. We saw a fight with a mini-boss that was relatively unremarkable, but it did at least end with a fairly satisfying 'boom.' The level culminated with the destruction of an arc weapon--basically an antenna that draws electricity from lightning and releases it to destroy troops ... Killzone 2 is loud, dirty, and violently elegant. If you have a PS3, you're going to want this game. If you don't have a PS3 you might have to figure out how you're going to get one." For more details, check out the Killzone 2 trailer Sony has released as well as the quick Q&A on the game at PS3 Fanboy.

is there a reasoning behind your pompous bullshit comment or you just wanting to thread crap?
killzone had amazing graphics and a great concept, good all around gameplay. what are you looking for? i am guessing you want to go play pokemon arena or something along those lines... if you don't think killzone is a great game your wrong

really didn't play it too much but the graphics at the time were amazing compared to any game out. but i just wanted to continue with im right your wrong mentality since that what seems to work. suprised he didn't add a 1st post WOOT! comment at the end

As much as I thought the parent to your OP was definitely being stupid, I have to agree with EveryNickIsTaken. The game is a great example of why graphics don't make a game. The graphics were great for a PS2 game, but had horrible mechanics, wretched animation, and boring gameplay. I have a PS3 and I'm going to be skeptical about this game until I can actually play a demo or get a review.

Is there a reason you replied to a pompous bullshit comment with your own pompous bullshit comment? Get over yourself, Killzone was a POS. Sure it was pretty. The game play/mechanics/story were horrible. I haven't met 1 person to say contrary yet. OF course accept you. But that doesn't count.

Eh, Killzone really had some things going for it.1. The existence of underslung shotguns on the Helghast weapons. Kinda like the underslung 870 used in the 'master key' system for the M-16/M-4/AR-15.2. Unlike in many games, you could disable auto-reload for your secondary weapon so that you don't offline your primary weapon just because you touched off a shotgun blast for suppressive fire.3. Sprinting was kinda neat.4. I actually liked the sniper rifle's aiming system. It felt more 'real' - like you had t

For those who don't want to read the whole thing or skip down to the summary, I concluded that it was not as good as the "Halo Killer" hype, but not as bad as the post-release reviews would have you believe. I did manage to extract some enjoyment from it.

But if Killzone 2 is more of the same with some pretty added to it, it certainly won't be

Are you retarded? I wrote it got so much attention due to the prerendered trailers. The trailers were prerendered. We only got to see in-game footage during the last few days. By the way, I own a PS3, you stupid Sony shill. You're not doing your employer any favours by insulting your customers.

Actually it can be used for many things, you can do some of the more general stuff in the cell then toss it onto the RSX for the actual rendering. Its actually pretty damned neat what they can do with that thing.

Think of it this way, you can do some of the general geometry and get the basics of the scene. Then you take it from the cell and send it to the RSX and let the RSX do the lighting and application of shaders and what not.

I'm talking from memory and I may not be saying that right but its the general Idea.

Gotta love how not many people have looked at PC games on high end systems then...
I heard the same crap about the Halo 3 beta, HD or not, I was not that impressed by it, It had graphics I saw 2 years ago with things like Half life 2: episode 1 and battlefield 2142.
Cell or not, I'd rather see it on a PC anyway.

that Sony/PS3 get for everything it seems these days, and the millions of Xbots, bloggers and even proper news sites, that will gun down everything Sony does, or spind things in a negative way, the fact they all came away saying great things about Killzone 2, means that, for a rational gamer, without Sony hate blurring things, this is some seriously impressive stuff.

I too have noticed that the new hip thing is to hate on Sony, especially on sites like Slashdot. Sony's E3 press conference starts soon, let's see what gets posted here about it. I bet it won't be "Sony's E3 Conference Displays Company Confidence" like the Microsoft article. In fact that Microsoft headline reads exactly like an advertisement.

I know, I know. If you listen to the Xbot blogging community, it's easy to be fooled into thinking the PS3 has no games.

Take a step out into the real world, and there are some great games already, both in retail (Motorstorm, Resistance, Oblivion, Ninja Gaiden Sigma, F1 Championship), and online (SuprtStardustHD, Gran TurismoHD, Calling All Cars).

There are loads more of course, I have listed the ones I keep coming back to..

Take a step out into the real world, and there are some great games already, both in retail (Motorstorm, Resistance, Oblivion, Ninja Gaiden Sigma, F1 Championship), and online (SuprtStardustHD, Gran TurismoHD, Calling All Cars).

Oblivion? Bleh. Without quite a few mods, that game sucks. I'll go along with Motorstorm, Resistance, and Ninja Gaiden. That's about it. The vast majority of PS3 games are just the usual same-old sports games or movie games. Hardly anything interesting or innovative. So, we're left with 60-something games, of which maybe 5 are any good. Not a good track record.

Eh, ever since I bought a PS3, I've had more games than I can play. I do, however, have a day job and my fiance demands that we watch DVDs pretty often too. So, the PS3 may not be the right choice for a guy who's spending all day at his console. But the rate of games I'm interested in being released is slightly higher than the amount of time it takes me to finish them, so I'm happy that I have a PS3. I've actually found myself using its media card slots pretty often to show stuff to friends, too.Now, th

Erm, I did use preview, but didn't catch this. I meant to say I haven't grumbled and rented a PS2 game due to lack of PS3 titles yet. Overall, what I'm saying is that the "there are no games" argument certainly doesn't apply to guys who only play a couple hours a day (with the occasional weekend marathon).

Review : It's generic, you just shoot shit and it's got loud sound.Review conclusion : YOU MUST BUY THIS GAME! IT IS BEST GAME EVER!!!

Excuse me while I work out what the fuck is going on with these guys. Why would a generic, shoot 'em up be a must buy when it's being labeled as a generic shoot 'em up with no real originality or redeemable qualities at all?

The level of vitriol going around in this post is remarkable. The one AC reply to you, for example, I just don't know what he's on. Objectively speaking though, I went ahead and actually read the FA, and you're pretty much spot on.

Gameplay quote:

Most of the action we saw was basic run-and gun--working your way up and down, through the buildings of the city to reach various checkpoints. We saw a fight with a mini-boss that was relatively unremarkable, but it did at least end with a fairly satisfying "boo

This is the best comment in the thread (or most on topic, take your pick). Most preview looks at games talk about how "awesome" these games are, not matter how they really feel about them. Or there might be some sort of "aura" given off by being a privledged game journalist who gets invited to see a AAA game before it comes out that makes you spout garbage, because you want the "i said it was cool first" cred. Never trust previews of games. NEVER.

"OMFG!!... it's the greatest thing any of us here at the FortressofDopitudeMegaGamerZone.tv have ever seen!!! If you don't have a PS3 you have to run out right effing now and get one or your life will be a dim shell of what could-have-been."

(How did that sound? You think they'll go for it? I'm behind a month on my car payment.)

Considering that most Americans are in debt, have multiple credit cards, have negative savings I don't think spending $600 they don't have will be an issue at all (or for that matter $3000 to get a HDTV, ps3, receiver, etc).

So removing hardware only used for playing PS2 games is going to somehow reduce performance on games that don't even use the aforementioned hardware?

Doesn't your question basically ask "Are they going to defeat the point of a console by removing the idea of one performance standard in game? At least a performance standard that can't be change by the user in a cheap fashion.

How are you today? Hope life is well in troll land. Considering the review said unremarkable boss fight, generic shooter, etc. it doesn't give one much hope at this point. Ya wow graphics....but the game play (from the article) sounds not so exciting.

Now how else are you a troll? Brining Halo 3 up when it wasn't even in the article and you assume because I make fun of a video game that I must be some sort of anti sony and pro 360 fan boy of the most extreme variety.

Didn't take a genius to work out you were a 360 gamer from your post. It's the same old Microsoft programmed rant 360 owners always post...

The most impressive part, is how Microsoft have actually managed to convince 10,000,000 Xbox owners, that the 360 rules, everything else sucks, despite actually supplying a pretty sucky consoles themselves, with regards to features and reliability...

Please quote from my post where I said the 360 was the greatest, everything else sucks, etc. etc. Cause I also have a DS, game cube and PC that I play games on too. Heck in past posts I have admitted to being 100% wrong on the design issues and posting MS should replace ALL the consoles that have the defect (which I think is all of them).

But let me turn this around: are you so much of a fan boy that you think that if someone makes fun of

Ok so... that was one of the most nonsense reviews of a supposedly "AAA" title I've read in some time. The wait was worth it for a "fairly linear... basic run and gun... mini boss that was quite unremarkable..." ????? If that's all it takes PS3 owners to get super-excited about a game, then things are grim indeed.

It's a generic shooter with a fittingly generic name. Even the "favorable" review manages to make this painfully obvious.

The game isn't done yet, they are just showing off a pre-beta. It's to be expected that the levels aren't smoothed out and the gameplay isn't in its final state. They were just showing off their graphics engine, and there's no doubt that it is AWESOME.

Gears of War actually has quite innovative gameplay. It doesn't feel at all like a "typical shooter." As for Halo, it is less innovative than Gears in ways but it also has a legacy that far precedes Killzone, let alone notions of a "typical shooter."

Has it been rated yet? It would be quite interesting if this were rated AO.What is the real difference between playing a game that has the sole purpose of killing a bunch of people a game that has the sole purpose of killing a bunch of people in a different country? Someone recently joked that Manhunt should have stated that the people were terrorists, and they'd have been okay on rating.

For my money, a game that attempts to realistically recreate the experience of war -should- be Adult Only, as real adul

Seeing as "adults" are *arbitrarily* considered people 18+, the whole "mental" aspect is kinda moot as it's different for every person. Some are fine with war from the age of 10, others can't cope with it their whole life. Proclaiming someone an adult starting from some random day doesn't make him/her any more capable in any way whatsoever.Anyway, until we're dealing with outright virtual reality, no game will "realistically recreate" the experience of war. If you have the same reaction to killing an enemy

"Manhunt 2 is distinguishable from recent high-end video games by its unremitting bleakness and callousness of tone in an overall game context which constantly encourages visceral killing with exceptionally little alleviation or distancing."..."There is sustained and cumulative casual sadism in the way in which these killings are committed, and encouraged, in the game,"

"We've captured things like muzzle flashes, reloads, and how a weapon feels and reacts in your hand. We want it to be as realistic as possible."

Everything except for actual damage, presumably. Show me a level where someone gets shot in the foot and limps for the rest of the level, and I'll be impressed. How about head-shots that actually kill or incapacitate an enemy?

I'm also pig-sick of 'futuristic' shooters where the available weaponry for 90% of the game is a pistol, a shotgun and an assault rifl

You got me there, I haven't had a chance to play red steel so I'm not entirely sold on Wii FPS, but if metroid prime is intuitive enough, I may actually buy a Wii, (even if it doesn't have HD quality graphics).

I remember when Killzone was touted as PS2's Halo-killer, but when I watched the intro and saw him fight in one of the levels, I found it to be another cookie-cutter shoot-em'-up with the same trench-based battles, running n' gunning, and post-apocalyptic scenario that every other shooter on the PS2 had. Best cheesy line? "What the f---'s a Shakespeare?" At this point I realized Killzone was ripping off Battlefield Earth, and anyone desperate to ripoff that storyline - whether it be the film or the novel th

I'm not going to jump on the Killzone bashing band-wagon, but I am going to jump on the "lets be like Halo" bashing bandwagon.To my knowledge, Halo was the first FPS that featured auto-regen of a vital life attribute (in Halo's case, shields). This added a lot of depth to both single and multi-player aspects as there was a reason to take cover beyond delaying the inevitable a few seconds longer. It was a unique feature and new to the genre.

Halo didn't generate the hype. It was as much a part of the hype as anything else. Quake was already on its third iteration when Halo hit the street and the FPS genre was already well established.

True, there were other FPS games out there, but Halo was finely polished and well designed. While it was by no means revolutionary, the developers did make a lot of smart decisions: a good storyline and good music were placed on top of a smooth, clean front-end UI, exellent enemy AI, and great level design. Because

The most unfortunate problem with this is the fact that this is the state of the video game industry at present. Everyone wants to stick with what's safe, nobody wants to do anything unique or imaginative.

Then play more indie games. This is like complaining "Live Free and Die Hard" is a stereotypical action movie - of course it is, all big-budget movies are like that. In the same way, big budget AAA titles tend to be derivative, preferring to make small twists on tried and true ideas instead of revolutionizing something or another.
If you want to support innovation in games, buy and play indie games. There are plenty of us out there who are looking for new gameplay elements that are new and untried, but th

I might be in the minority here, but I'm not a huge gamer. I didn't grow up with Nintendo or Sega, I'm not a Counterstrike master, I prefer Bejewled to Tetris, I never played Duke Nukem or DOOM or Myst. That said, I've always found the Killzone games irresistably attractive due to their Saving Private Ryan-esque, post-apocalyptic, frantic atmosphere, the sweeping environments and orchestral score, the sound work, the surreal environments, and most importantly, the Helghast, who are so frighteningly sinister

I might be in the minority here, but I'm not a huge gamer. I didn't grow up with Nintendo or Sega, I'm not a Counterstrike master, I prefer Bejewled to Tetris, I never played Duke Nukem or DOOM or Myst. That said, I've always found the Killzone games irresistably attractive due to their Saving Private Ryan-esque, post-apocalyptic, frantic atmosphere, the sweeping environments and orchestral score, the sound work, the surreal environments, and most importantly, the Helghast, who are so frighteningly sinister

Why isn't Sony catering to people like me? I don't give a shit about the next gaming revolution, I want a centralized, versatile media center with stuff I can play with, listen to, watch, and hack.

The PS3 does that too. Either you can use the XMB to play / stream music & video or even run Linux if you like. Any Linux without any signed binary nonsense. You can already install Ubuntu, Yellow Dog Linux and Fedora Core. I'm surprised no one has produced a dist yet that jumps straight into MythTV for it.

First off, you say that you find Killzone irresistably attractive because of this and that, and then you say, "it doesn't draw me in." Could you please make up your mind? 0_o;And also, if you like the Saving Private Ryan-esque trench battles and stuff, why not just buy Medal of Honor or another game based off of World War II? It's the exact same scenario, but with different names and weaponry: you love shooting Nazis, you're fighting in trenches, and you've most certainly got a frantic atmosphere. Oh yeah,

I've never been a big fan of FPS games on consoles because their gameplay simply isn't suited for a gamepad controller, not in my hands anyways. So the first, and only, console FPS that really did something for me was Gears of War - which I hoped would spark a trend in Console FPS games. Well it sure doesn't look like Sony has picked up on that yet, because it sure seems like Killzone 2 will be doing every single mistake in terms of gameplay that puts me off the gameplay.